U.S. Department of State Daily Press Briefing #124, 97-08-29
From: The Department of State Foreign Affairs Network (DOSFAN) at <http://www.state.gov>
987
U.S. Department of State
Daily Press Briefing
I N D E X
Friday, August 29, 1997
Briefer: James P. Rubin
ANNOUNCEMENTS/STATEMENTS
1 Briefing Schedule for Next Week
MIDDLE EAST
1-2 Secretary Albright's Travel to the Middle East/Purpose/
Itinerary
1 --Discussions with Saudi Arabia
2-3,7 --Timing of Secretary's Trip to the Middle East
2-3 --Israeli-Palestinian Track
3,8,15 --Security Cooperation
3,4-5 --Israeli-Syrian Track
4 --U.S. Policy re Iran/Dialogue
5-6 --Secretary Albright's Conversations/Calls re Trip
5 --Prospects for Visit to Lebanon
5 --French Foreign Minister's Comments re Middle East Peace
Process
6 --Issue of Settlements
6-7 --Proposed Dam Construction Along Yarmouk River/Impact on
Peace Process
RUSSIA
8 Seismic Event in Vicinity of Novaya Zemlya on August 16
NORTH KOREA
9 Status of the Preparatory Meeting Scheduled for September 15
9-10 US Contacts with North Korea re Defectors
UK/NORTHERN IRELAND
10 Inclusion of Sinn Fein in All-Party Talks
10 Visit to US by Gerry Adams
BOSNIA
10-11,14 Developments on the Ground/SFOR Role and Mandate
12 --Statements by General Shalikashvili and Richard
Holbrooke
8,12-13 Ambassador Gelbard's Travel/Meetings
13-14 Prospects for Elections
GREECE/TURKEY/CYPRUS
14-15 Reported Turkish Violations of Greek Airspace in Aegean
COUNTER-NARCOTICS
16 Reported Threats Against General McCaffery
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
DAILY PRESS BRIEFING
DPB #124
FRIDAY, AUGUST 29, 1997 12:40 P.M.
(ON THE RECORD UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED)
MR. RUBIN: Greetings, another Friday, late August. I will not be here
next week. The able Jim Foley will here on his first days at this podium.
Please be nice to him. I have a couple of announcements I will post
afterwards. But let me start by saying the following: Secretary Albright
will depart for the Middle East on September the 9th. The Secretary's trip
will have several dimensions. First, the Secretary will see what she and
the United States can do to help Israel and the Palestinians address the
crisis of confidence that she said has been blocking the resumption of
negotiations.
Second, the Secretary will explore with the parties how we can again find
ways to move forward towards a comprehensive peace. Third, the Secretary
will be consulting with our friends in the region about a variety of other
important issues, including the security of the Persian Gulf, the issue of
Iran, and the issue of Iraq. Towards these objectives, the Secretary will
visit Israel, the Palestinian Authority, Egypt, Jordan, Syria, and Saudi
Arabia.
The United States continues to believe in the importance of achieving a
comprehensive peace settlement of the Arab-Israeli conflict. President
Clinton and Secretary Albright will do everything they can to assist in
that effort.
Barry.
QUESTION: On the Gulf part of the component, can you in advance of the
trip - I don't know if this is the occasion, if you have that kind of
information handy - but could you give us an idea of the Saudis disposition
at this point to stockpile, for instance, weapons, and to be a true partner
of the United States in protecting oil - oil reserves, oil supplies in
that region?
MR. RUBIN: Yes, we will obviously be talking about that issue. There are
always issues involved in trying to assess the right way in which to ensure
that our forces are in a position to defend what we have regarded in the
past and still regard as a vital interest of the United States, and that is
the stability and security of the Gulf and the oil supplies therein.
As far as any specific issues of concern on both sides, with regard to
security, or where the troops are located, or how many of a particular type
of equipment is in what location, that will surely come up. At the time we
will try to get you some information on the state of play in that
regard.
QUESTION: How many days is she going?
MR. RUBIN: Well, I have given you what I can say, which is the date of
departure. At this point, I am not able to go into much more detail. But
for those of you who will be able to accompany us - and let me emphasize
that the plane is the smallest of the three planes and the demand is the
highest that I have seen yet on a trip for the Secretary of State -- so I
wouldn't schedule anything for at least a week. But we will have to see how
it goes. We will try to give you more detail on the specific dates
and times as they become available. But there will be a sign-up sheet
posted this afternoon.
QUESTION: Jamie, and she obviously made this decision for this particular
date because she feels as though the time is ripe now and that they have
made some progress?
MR. RUBIN: Correct.
QUESTION: Could you just elaborate on --
MR. RUBIN: Well, the Secretary said in her August speech that she would
travel to the region when the time was appropriate and ripe and her trip
would be useful. She also said she would go if there were some progress in
the security situation. There has been progress. Some progress has been
made and there is a trend in the right direction, and that direction is
towards greater cooperation in the area of security.
At the same time, we need to build on this trend and see greater efforts
from the Palestinians. We will be raising that issue with Chairman Arafat
and the Palestinians when we meet with them. Security is an ever present
part of the peace process. No process can succeed without security, and it
is impossible to discuss getting this process back on track without
discussing security. Clearly the peace process is in trouble. As the
Secretary stressed in her speech, there is a crisis of confidence. The
Secretary's trip is designed to begin to address that lack of confidence,
but the problems between the two parties are complex. They are deeply
entrenched, and they will not be solved by one trip.
Secretary Albright is a lot of things, but she is also a realist. She is
not a magician. She has quite realistic expectations about what can be
solved on this trip.
QUESTION: I just want to follow up with one other thing. Some Palestinians
were saying that if she didn't come soon, they feared that there would be
another eruption in the region. How would you respond to that?
MR. RUBIN: She is coming soon.
QUESTION: No, no, no, that she was - no that she was coming in order to
avert some other kind of eruption, and that things, you know, they were
basically pleading with her and you said she wasn't a magician, but it
seems as though she was going to be some kind of patchwork-maker, if you
will.
MR. RUBIN: Secretary Albright believes that the moment is ripe for the
reasons that I stated. We, obviously, don't want to see an eruption in the
Middle East. We've seen some progress in recent days. There has been some
lifting of the closure by the Israelis. There has been movement on the
security track. The trend is in the right direction, and during her trip
she will be, hopefully, moving the parties forward in that area.
But, again, the trip is about trying to build back the peace process from
the abyss it has been in. She is not a magician; she's a realist. But she
believes that it's time to take the first trip to talk to the leaders on
their home turf, to see the people in the region and to talk to them, and
to see the other aspects of Israeli and Palestinian society. So that's
where we are.
Yes, David.
QUESTION: Could you update us on progress on the security track?
MR. RUBIN: Well, I can't give you any more details than I've given you in
the past. What I think I said - I don't know if you were here - was that in
recent weeks there had been some progress in the area of the explosives
involved, and there has been, since that time, progress in other areas. But,
again, our feeling is that, when we have progress and we're moving in
the right direction, it's better to let the experts do their work
than to crow about it from here.
Yes, Judd.
QUESTION: Jamie, what are the expectations on the Syrian front? Does the
Secretary have a proposal to get Syria and Israel back to the negotiating
table?
MR. RUBIN: Well, on the Syria front, there are a lot of issues to be
discussed, including terrorism. As you know, Syria is on the list of state
sponsors for terrorism. We will be addressing that, as we have in the past.
We will also be seeing if we can find a way to bridge the gap between the
current Israeli and Syrian positions on how to get the Syria-Israel track
back working.
The United States has long sought, and continues to seek under President
Clinton and Secretary Albright, to close the circle of peace, and that
would require peace between Israel and Syria. The Israelis very much want
us to see if there are ways to bridge that gap.
We do not have any expectations whatsoever that this trip will move it
forward on that front. However, no secretary or higher has met with
President Assad in over a year, and we think it's time to sit down with him
and see where he is at on this question and to determine whether there are
ways that we can move it forward.
Yes, Roy.
QUESTION: The realistic expectations you said that she's going in with,
what do you expect could be accomplished on the Israeli-Palestinian
front?
MR. RUBIN: It's hard to answer that other than to say that one trip is
not going to turn around this crisis of confidence. She's a realist, not a
magician. The Secretary will provide a reality check of what is required to
make the process succeed. She will explore ways to reestablish engagement
of the various negotiating tracks, none of which are now operating, whether
that's the seaport, the airport, the safe passage, other issues related
to implementing Oslo. Again, she has said, in her speech, that ultimately
we would like to see whether there is a way to marry the idea of accelerating
permanent status talks with the aspects of the Oslo process that have not
been completed. But that's not something we expect to make significant
movement on in this trip.
Given the state of the peace process, given the fact that it is a crisis of
confidence, I think she will be happy in giving the leaders a reality check
and the people a reality check of what direction the trend is leading, and
seeing whether she can reverse the downward slide that we've seen in the
Middle East in recent weeks.
QUESTION: On the Persian Gulf and -- you say she will be discussing Iran
and Iraq. In light of the shift in the Iranian governance, is there any
review going on now within the U.S. Government about dual containment and
its viability?
MR. RUBIN: Let me say that, given the job that I have, which involves a
lot of close contact with the Secretary, I am going to make it a practice
of not talking about reviews of policy, because it can be very misleading.
People can be saying that they are thinking anew about a subject, or they
can be saying, "I wonder about this," and "I wonder about that,"
which is exactly what you would expect from policymakers, and since I might
hear more of that than some of my predecessors, I'm not going to make it a
practice of discussing with you every time I think somebody said, "Oh, gee,
wouldn't it be interesting if this," or "What if that."
Having said all that, to my knowledge, there is no review of the kind that
you described. Our views on Iran are well known. We believe that we are
prepared to have a dialogue with the Iranian Government. In our view the
Iranian interlocutor must an authoritative representative of the Iranian
Government. The fact of the dialogue must be publicly acknowledged. Of
course, we would raise the issues most important to us, that is Iranian
policies with regard to proliferation of weapons of mass destruction,
support for terrorism and violent opposition the Middle East peace process.
So that's where we are on Iran.
QUESTION: Apparently, taking a cue from what you have been saying here,
that the new president or some of his spokesmen have been saying that they
would be willing to have a dialogue with the United States but they think
actions speak louder than words. They want to see some actions on the part
of the U.S. Government. Do you contemplate any gestures in that direction?
MR. RUBIN: I think they must have read what I said because I think that's
what I said.
(Laughter.)
QUESTION: So you agree?
QUESTION: Jamie, back to the Syrian part.
MR. RUBIN: Yes.
QUESTION: Has the Secretary spoken with President Assad at all or with
Foreign Minister --
MR. RUBIN: Last week - last week I think I told you that she was woken up
in the middle of the night regarding the Lebanon situation and spoke to
Foreign Minister Shara to see whether we could try to avoid a situation
where the violence in southern Lebanon spun out of control. In preparation
for her trip, however, this morning she has spoken to Prime Minister
Netanyahu and Chairman Arafat. She also spoke yesterday for Russian Foreign
Minister Primakov. She spoke this morning to French Foreign Minister
Vedrine. She spoke, as well, to the British Foreign Secretary Cook,
and some others, and some members of Congress she has been speaking
to, as well. So she has been working the phones all morning and yesterday.
I do not believe that Foreign Minister Shara was on her list.
QUESTION: The French Foreign Minister yesterday has criticized strongly
the United States for being too passive in the Middle East process, as he
said. He wanted Paris to take a more active role in reviving the peace
talks. Has any --
MR. RUBIN: I know I didn't brief yesterday, but I was reading the wires.
I thought he was saying something entirely different about France's role in
the world. So I don't know where that comes from.
QUESTION: Is she going to Lebanon? And what's the objective for that part
of --
MR. RUBIN: She has made no decision to go to Lebanon. Obviously, the
question of Lebanon is one that will come up in a lot of different meetings
she will have. We are very concerned about what's going there. We would
like to urge all the parties to exercise maximum restraint. We saw a time
last week where it looked like the situation was getting worse. We have
been working through the monitoring group to try to keep it under control.
We are obviously concerned about that. The subject will surely arise. But
she has made no decision to go to Lebanon.
QUESTION: The subject of going there on this trip?
MR. RUBIN: No, the subject of Lebanon.
QUESTION: Is she considering going there on this trip, though, I
guess?
MR. RUBIN: The Secretary has made no decision about going to Lebanon.
QUESTION: What was the message to the Europeans then -- Vedrine and Cook -
- when she called?
MR. RUBIN: Well, I think without, again, breaking the purpose of
diplomatic exchanges, which is to keep them confidential, I think she
briefed them on her intentions, what she is doing, why she decided to go,
who she will meet with, what messages she will be carrying - in general
terms - and tried to get their advice and support in trying to promote
peace in the region. Each of those leaders in their own ways has some
influence on the process. We would like to encourage the maximum support
from our allies and friends to try to encourage and put leverage on the
leaders in the region to move in the right direction because we are
very concerned about the state of the Middle East peace process.
Any more on the Middle East?
QUESTION: Talking about building confidence, does the Secretary intend to
raise the question of the settlements and to demand to freeze them?
MR. RUBIN: I think our position on settlements is fairly well known and
we don't think it would be constructive in advance of a trip to get into
exactly what we will and won't ask the Israeli Government to do.
I can say this, the Secretary made clear in her speech that unilateral
actions have contributed to the crisis of confidence. Those steps that were
reserved for final status, permanent status talks, should be left for final
status, permanent status talks, and unilateral prejudging or predetermining
the outcome is one of the reasons why we are in a crisis of confidence. But
I don't have anything for you on what she will specifically say in Israel.
I suspect we will be doing the best we can to let you know what happens
when we are there.
QUESTION: Jamie --
MR. RUBIN: Any more on the Middle East, yes.
QUESTION: -- (inaudible) talking about building the dam in disputed
territory not contributing to the easing the crisis of confidence in the
Syrian negotiations?
MR. RUBIN: You must have not been here on Wednesday.
QUESTION: No, I was. But I want to raise it again.
MR. RUBIN: What I said on Wednesday was, we are not precisely sure where
the construction would involve the dam being placed. There are obviously a
variety of interests involved here. We are encouraging all the parties to
think long and hard about the steps that they take and to make sure that if
it were placed in the way that it's reported it might be placed, to make
clear that we don't think that's particularly helpful.
QUESTION: (Inaudible) days and you haven't been able to determine where
that dam is going?
MR. RUBIN: We have been talking to the government in Israel about this.
It is still unclear the extent to which it would fall into the disputed
territory. I think these plans probably emerged publicly a little bit
before they were finalized. For whatever reason, I don't know. But we are
still trying to determine exactly the extent to which it would cause the
kinds of problems the original reporting suggested it might. Any more on
this? Yes.
QUESTION: Jamie, you didn't address the timing. Is there any reason why
September 9th, rather, say, a week ago is the timing for the trip? I mean,
is something falling into place? Or do you hope to have something falling
into place by that point that will assist? It is seven months into her term
in office.
MR. RUBIN: Ambassador Ross is not going to the region before her just in
case somebody was about to ask that question. The trip is not designed as
closing a deal that is pre-cooked or worked out through diplomatic
channels. On the contrary, we are at a moment in the Middle East peace
process where the basic peace process channels have been not operating
because of this crisis in confidence and most recently because of the bomb
that killed so many innocent Israelis.
So what we have said and what she said during her speech was that we wanted
to make the decision to go, and she had made the decision to go in
principle. But that in order for a trip to be productive and to not spend
the entire time talking about detailed security issues that should be
resolved prior to her trip, she wanted to give some space and some time to
see whether the trilateral mechanism that we created could work. We believe
it's working.
The trend is in the right direction. Progress has been made, and enough
progress has been made to justify going forward. We hope that additional
progress will be made before we get there so that the Secretary doesn't
find herself focused on important but detailed issues of infrastructure for
terrorists and arrest lists and that kind of subject, but can focus on what
a Secretary of State can bring to the table here, and that is giving the
leaders a reality check of what is possible and what is not possible in the
peace process, explaining to them the direction that things are heading
and the American interests in the region and our interest in peace and our
broader interest in the region.
So that's the role of a Secretary of State's trip. So the timing is now
ripe. The Secretary will be on a private visit out of the country tomorrow,
starting next week. She will not be available during that week. So the week
after that, she will be going to the Middle East.
QUESTION: The Secretary will be leaving from here, not from there?
MR. RUBIN: Leaving from here, correct.
QUESTION: New subject.
QUESTION: Jamie, one more, Middle East.
MR. RUBIN: Yes.
QUESTION: Can you detail the progress? I mean, you have talked about the
assistance on the explosives and the security cooperation, but just for the
- as a sort of update, can you detail where you think - why she thinks
there has been progress.
MR. RUBIN: Again, I can't. In answer to David's question, I think I gave
the reason why. I can tell you to look at her speech and see the four
substantive points she made about arrests not being a revolving door, about
information being provided about what had happened, information being
provided about what might happen in the future, and about infrastructure
for terrorist cells. Those are the waterfront when it comes to security
cooperation and fighting terrorism. I did say in response to, I believe
it was David's question, that there had been some work done on explosives
and additional work had been done in other areas.
QUESTION: You may have seen the reports about the Russians supposedly
having engaged in some nuclear testing, notwithstanding promises to the
contrary. The Russians are now saying it was an ordinary earthquake and not
a nuclear test. Do you have anything on that?
MR. RUBIN: We have information that a seismic event with explosive
characteristics occurred in the vicinity of the Russian nuclear test range
at Novaya Zemlya on August the 16th. The information we have is still under
intensive review. We are currently engaged in a dialogue with Russia and
with other countries regarding this event.
Let me point out that the information we have is not conclusive. We are not
able to confirm that a nuclear test has taken place, thus we cannot rule
out an earthquake or another natural explanation like the one the Russians
provided to you. So that's the situation. The information is not conclusive.
We haven't been able to confirm that a nuclear test has taken place. But
obviously information came to our attention that was troubling. There were
some early indication of its explosive characteristics. Now what we're
doing is what we are supposed to be doing, which is talking to the
Russians about what they know and what information they have, expressing
our concern about the matter, and talking to our allies who may have
additional information, and assessing what is complicated science, which is
trying to determine what this event was.
QUESTION: Just a follow-up. Did the Secretary discuss this issue with
Foreign Minister Primakov this morning when she talked to him?
MR. RUBIN: She spoke to him yesterday. I do not believe this came up
other than in passing because it was deemed to be something the experts had
to work on. But I would be surprised if she didn't mention it. The purpose
of the call was focused on Bosnia in advance of Ambassador Gelbard's visit
there and the Middle East trip.
QUESTION: Mr. Rubin is there currently a crisis in confidence? Was there
a serious loss of face by the North Koreans over the defector, and the
timing of the talks, and that fact that we didn't call the talks off? And
what is being done by the U.S. Government - I understand we visited the
North Koreans today routinely in New York - what is being done to, let's
say, gain confidence, gain trust in this relationship and get them to the
four-party talks?
MR. RUBIN: Well, I would point out that I welcome your attempt to link
analogies. But in the Middle East, there were peace agreements, and in the
Korean peninsula there have not even been replacements of armistice
agreements. So we are a long way from the same base from which the crisis
could be created. However, let me say this, in the first preparatory talks
in August, the four parties agreed to hold another preparatory meeting to
take place the week of September 15th.
To date the DPRK has said nothing further to us related to the question of
whether they will arrive the week of September the 15th. So far, so good.
We see no linkage between the case and the four-party peace process. I
can't speak for the DPRK, but we believe they have made clear in the past
that the four-party process is something that's in their interest. The
talks are clearly in their interest, in our view. They are in the interest
of all the people on Korean Peninsula. They are a way to bring stability
and, hopefully, prosperity to the region.
I can't get into the practice of detailing publicly every time we talk to
the North Koreans. I can say that we do have regular working-level contact
with them, and we are hoping that, during the course of the coming weeks,
that they will make clear they are prepared to set a date for the missile
talks that were postponed. We're hoping that, when September 15th rolls
around, we will be in a position to discuss this important negotiation. But
we're quite cognizant of the fact that, in the past, some cases like
these or similar to these have temporarily interfered with the diplomatic
process, and that has interfered with the scheduling of negotiations. So
that's certainly a possibility, but so far, so good.
QUESTION: What would you say to Selig Harrison's comment that what
happened this week with the North Koreans strengthens hard-liners in North
Korea who want confrontation with the U.S. instead of engagement?
MR. RUBIN: I guess what I would say to Selig Harrison is that he writes
interesting op ed pieces.
QUESTION: Another North Korea question?
MR. RUBIN: Yes.
QUESTION: Have the North Koreans officially communicated to the United
States about their demand to send back the ambassador and his family?
MR. RUBIN: Well, again, without breaking the confidentiality of
diplomatic discussions, there was a working-level meeting recently, and
given the timing of what had transpired, I leave you to draw your own
conclusions.
QUESTION: I have some questions on Northern Ireland. In the light of the
British Government's announcement today that Sinn Fein will be able to join
the talks on September the 15th, , can we first have your reaction to that?
And then a second question, looking at the visit next week of Gerry Adams,
what you expect to achieve through that? And also, what specific, if any,
American involvement do you see from now on in, in the peace process?
MR. RUBIN: The British government has announced that the cease fire
declared on July 19th by the IRA is genuine in word and deed. The British
and Irish governments have long held that Sinn Fein may join in the all-
party talks in Belfast only when the IRA ceased all violent operations. The
United States has strongly supported this position and welcomes both the
cease-fire itself and the inclusion of Sinn Fein in the talks, which we
consider to be the best means of achieving a lasting overall settlement
in Northern Ireland.
As far as the American role in the talks, I believe Senator George Mitchell
is an American, and Secretary Albright and he know each other extremely
well. I observed Senator Mitchell working very closely with President
Clinton during some political events in the United States last fall, and I
am sure that Senator Mitchell will be keeping in touch with the United
States during the course of these talks.
Again, these are, like many negotiations around the world, where the hard
choices, the real decisions, the ultimate success will depend on whether
the parties themselves have come to a conclusion that peace through the
negotiating table is better than conflict through the streets. That's their
decision. All we can do in this kind of a case is try to make ourselves
available to assist in the process. That's what Senator Mitchell is
doing.
As far as your third question is concerned, I don't know that we have an
objective for Gerry Adams' visit. You'll have to ask Gerry Adams what his
objective is. We provided the visa under the normal restrictions we've
provided in the context of a cease-fire, and those restrictions are the
same; namely, no restrictions except we will, obviously, be interested to
know what kind of fundraising goes on.
QUESTION: On Bosnia.
MR. RUBIN: Yes.
QUESTION: Could you bring us up to date on the developments on the ground
there? Also, specifically, NATO issued a statement today threatening the
use of force in the case of incendiary radio and television broadcasts. I
think there was one overnight that might fit that category. The prime
minister of the Bosnian Serb Republic is quoted as encouraging the Brcko
riders to carry on. So should we expect the use of force against TV and
radio in the Republika Srpska?
MR. RUBIN: According to SFOR, the situation today has been relatively
calm. We believe that the violence yesterday was orchestrated; it wasn't
spontaneous. The RS prime minister broadcast an incendiary message to
citizens, urging them to resist SFOR. There was clearly a coordinated use
of media to incite violence. Pale media falsely accused the international
forces of murder. Sirens were used to call out the population in Brcko, who
descended upon the bridge where SFOR troops were stationed.
Let me say that we condemn this call to violence by an elected official. As
far as what SFOR will or won't do, SFOR's mandate is to ensure a secure
environment, and SFOR will take action when necessary to carry out its
mandate. There will be a zero tolerance for violence. As far as what use of
force might be expected in the future, I think I'd be surprised if anyone
pre-details the use of force. That would be dumb, and I'm hoping not to
start off my career at the podium by being stupid.
QUESTION: But does the prime minister's statement on the radio constitute
a violation of the zero tolerance for violence or the incitement of
violence?
MR. RUBIN: Yes, it does. As far as what steps we will take, that is up to
NATO and SFOR to determine. Let me say this: There have been some
surprising commentaries in recent days around the idea that because there
was a relatively modest incident yesterday involving stones and bricks --
Secretary Albright was herself was the subject of such an incident not that
far away -- Roy, I think you were with us - in the Serb part of Croatia.
Contrary to the perception that some have given to this, we're at a
turning point, and this turning point in the Republika Srpska shows
that large numbers of residents have been rejecting Karadzic and his
cronies and the Pale faction's leadership, which has been against Dayton
and has led to their economic and political isolation.
Increasing numbers of residents seem to be siding with President Plavsic,
who has stated her support for full implementation of Dayton. The crowds
supporting Mrs. Plavsic have numbered 5,000 in recent days, while the
crowds in support of Pale have dwindled. They are in a situation where the
tide of history is turning in favor of the supporters of peace in Bosnia,
and there are some bad apples who continue to try to spoil it for the rest
of the people of Bosnia.
That will continue there for a long time, but the momentum has clearly
shifted in favor of the supporters of peace, in favor of Mrs. Plavsic.
There are increasing numbers of police who are seeking to join the new
police force that the international community is setting up. I gather the
numbers are up to 800 police who have sought to join this restructured
police. There are increasing numbers of towns that have pledged their
loyalty to the constitutionally elected government.
So things are moving in the right direction. That doesn't mean there aren't
going to be some bad apples who are going to try to use this kind of
intimidation, but SFOR is well equipped to defend itself. As you know, SFOR
is prepared to use force in a variety of circumstances, if that proves
necessary.
QUESTION: May I follow up on one bit of this? Yesterday, Holbrooke said -
I believe it was on ABC or - yeah, I think it was on ABC - that if the
Serbs continue their action and their non-willingness to work and their
confrontational manner, that NATO will deal with them swiftly and severely.
However, yesterday, also, General Shalikashvili said that he doesn't want
any U.S. troops endangered, and there's only so far they could go.
Could you just tell us, once again - I know you've probably repeated this
before - but how far will NATO go?
MR. RUBIN: I'd urge you, when quoting General Shalikashvili, to be more
accurate. What he said yesterday was that NATO forces were not in the
business of hunting down war criminals. That is a position that spokesmen
for this government have taken for months and months. There's nothing new
there. He made clear that that is not their mission, hunting down war
criminals, and we have made clear for some time that they have the
authority, and if circumstances permit, where the tactical commander makes
a decision to do so, he has the authority, but the idea that their
mission ought to be running around and seeking war criminals is not
the position of the United States. That's all that General Shalikashvili
said, as far as I can tell.
QUESTION: Comments on Holbrooke's remarks, though, the "severe" comments,
I mean, that NATO troops would take severe --
MR. RUBIN: I mean, you keep characterizing -
QUESTION: -- and swift action.
MR. RUBIN: I don't understand. I've said the same thing, which is that
NATO troops, SFOR troops, are prepared to use force to support the Dayton
agreements. They will make the decisions when. It would be a grave mistake
for people to test their willingness to defend themselves or to defend the
agreement.
QUESTION: What was Mr. Gelbard's message to the Russians vis-à-vis
the elections? What was the Russian response to it? What is Mr. Gelbard's
message for Milosevic today?
MR. RUBIN: One of the reasons I was eight and a half minutes late is that
I was on the phone with Ambassador Gelbard. He had just finished a two and
a half hour meeting with President Milosevic in which he had followed up on
the Secretary's conversation, in which she had said to him, to President
Milosevic, that the time has come for him to get off the fence, to get with
the program, and to get on the side of those who are supporting the very
peace agreement that he signed, and that it's long past due for him
to do what he can to stop the invective coming out of Pale radio, to make
sure the interior minister, Mr. Kijac is indeed taken out of the picture,
in terms of his government role, and that he should get off the fence.
Ambassador Gelbard is an able diplomat, and he was being careful on an open
line. I don't have anything to report other than to say that I think that
President Milosevic fully understood the seriousness with which we attach
to this current moment, and the fact that we will judge him and his country,
and his country's future, by the steps he takes in the coming days and
weeks. I don't think he has any illusions about that after Ambassador
Gelbard's presentation.
As far as the Russia piece is concerned, he told me that his meetings went
extremely well in Moscow and that he is going to be following up on them
next week, and that we're going to be working closely with Russia to try to
see that the elections that are scheduled for later this year, in September
and October, have the full support of the OSCE, so that they can be held in
as free and as fair a situation as possible.
QUESTION: Is the election to occur in September and October?
MR. RUBIN: That is the current plan, yes.
QUESTION: Mrs. Plavsic founded her party yesterday. Do you expect it to
win any seats in September?
MR. RUBIN: Well, she also got a radio station and a TV station that will
broadcast a different view to most of the people of western Bosnia. We're
realists when it comes to how free and how fair these elections will be,
but again, we had an election and Mrs. Plavsic was elected. And lo and
behold, soon thereafter, some months thereafter, she began to support the
Dayton agreement. So even when you don't always get the right situation for
free and fair elections, moving in the direction of democracy, more
elections are better than fewer elections. Again, we want to see what we
can do to get as much work done between now and September and October, to
see whether we can make it as free and fair as possible.
QUESTION: Jamie, just to follow on that and go back to Milosevic, what's
the current understanding of his possible travel plans to Republika
Srpska?
MR. RUBIN: I don't have that information in front of me, but as far as I
recall from yesterday, we did not believe that neither he nor one of his
deputies was intending to go to Bosnia, pursuant to the news accounts. Is
that correct? I saw something to that effect. So we're not sure, but I
think, if I were leaning in a direction today, as opposed to two days ago,
I would be leaning - no, but I think President Milosevic can announce his
travel schedule all by himself.
QUESTION: Back on the Russians.
MR. RUBIN: Yes.
QUESTION: Are they now acquiescing in the use of OSCE observers for the
October parliamentary election in Republika Srpska?
MR. RUBIN: I think they agree with us on the need to try to do what we
can to make the elections work. They had some concerns. That is what
Ambassador Gelbard was working on with them. He, again, on an open line,
was reluctant to get into a lot of details but did say that he was very
encouraged and thought the meetings in Moscow had gone extremely well. So I
leave you to draw your own conclusions from that.
Yes. I know what we're going to do here. Let me see. One, two, three.
Cyprus.
QUESTION: Can we stick with Bosnia for a minute?
QUESTION: After the Italian foreign minister --
MR. RUBIN: One more on Bosnia.
QUESTION: There was a decision earlier this month that the specialized
police surrounding Karadzic and guarding various people would be treated as
a military force. The agreement apparently has not yet come into effect,
and I was wondering why and when it will?
MR. RUBIN: Well, I don't think that's quite accurate either. SFOR has
three stages for bringing special police under their control. They have
identified special police units, inspected these units, and these units
must comply fully with SFOR by August the 31st . And the issue is not
whether the police are dismantled, but rather that they come under the
control of SFOR, under Annex 1-A. We understand the process is proceeding
on track. All units will be under SFOR control by the deadline of August
31st.
QUESTION: Now, what does that mean, in real terms, to the guard that is
protecting Karadzic himself?
MR. RUBIN: Well, to the extent that any guards protecting Karadzic are
part of the special police, they would no longer be permitted to guard
indicted war criminals. To the extent that Mr. Karadzic's guards are
civilians, the Dayton accords wouldn't apply. But, again, I would remind
all indicted war criminals that they should not be sleeping well, that SFOR
is determined to maintain a secure environment, that the international
community has conducted operations in the past to bring them to justice. I
suspect that, without the special police, he's going to feel a little less
comfortable sleeping at night.
QUESTION: Have they, in fact, been protecting him up until now? Has this
been a major force protecting him?
MR. RUBIN: Again, our knowledge and information about who protects Mr.
Karadzic, how they protect him, and what they will do for him in the future
would be foolish for us to discuss publicly.
Let's go to Cyprus. And you know what, they didn't even give me anything
today, so I'm going to have to do it on memory.
QUESTION: You know the answer, of course. After the Italian foreign
minister, the European Union, leaked to the press a non-paper saying that
it has been recognized that there are two republics in Cyprus, two entities,
two governments, something against your policy. Any comment?
MR. RUBIN: Yes. Today is Friday. On Wednesday, the question was almost
identical. Whatever answer I gave you on Wednesday still holds.
QUESTION: Despite - on the Aegean issue -- despite the Madrid agreement
you initiated, the Department of State, the last few days Turkish war
planes are brutally violating the Greek air space over the Aegean, crossing
even the Greek islands. Could you please comment on that?
MR. RUBIN: I'll try to get you - Mr. McClenny will be available later
this afternoon to go through , in great detail with you, that information.
Yes.
QUESTION: Jamie, about Mr. Vedrine's statement, he made --
MR. RUBIN: Mr. Vedrine?
QUESTION: Yes, Vedrine.
MR. RUBIN: Foreign Minister Vedrine. Yes.
QUESTION: Forgive my French.
MR. RUBIN: Pardon my French, very good.
QUESTION: He made -- Europe One Radio, Reuters has reported from Paris at
4:00 yesterday, in the morning. Anyway, you don't want to comment on that,
I understand. My question is, now, do you have any information about the
identity of the two suicide bombers in the market?
MR. RUBIN: No new information today.
QUESTION: Mr. Abdel Aziz al-Rantisi, the Hamas leader who embraced Arafat,
remember?
MR. RUBIN: Right.
QUESTION: Yes. He made an interview with The Guardian newspaper, the
British Guardian newspaper correspondent in Jerusalem, claiming that his
organization is responsible for the suicide?
MR. RUBIN: I haven't seen that report.
QUESTION: You haven't seen that?
MR. RUBIN: We don't have any information to conclude that.
QUESTION: Mr. McCaffery, who has reported increasing violence on the
border, a low-grade war, has himself been threatened with a rocket attack.
There have been 200 U.S. agents - or, yes, 200 U.S. agents attacked in the
last year and 200 Mexican agents dead. Can you comment, Jamie, about this
increasing violence?
MR. RUBIN: General McCaffery has made it clear that he is aware of the
threat that law enforcement officers on both sides of the border face. We
do not want to speak to the details on any specific security issue, but we
are aware of the threat. As far as attacking law enforcement officers is
concerned, we consider this a grave situation, and we will be wanting to
see what we can do to improve their security.
Thank you.
(The briefing concluded at 1:28 P.M.).
|
